THEY JUST KILL' ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES' 'WAR ON DRUGS' - Prismic
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2019 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons Cover photo: Crime scene investigators stand over the body of a man killed by unknown armed persons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. in May 2018, Caloocan City, Metro Manila. Local officials said the man was on a “drug watch list.” https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode © Amnesty International For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2019 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: ASA 35/0578/2019 Original language: English amnesty.org
CONTENTS MAP 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 METHODOLOGY 7 1. BACKGROUND 8 2. EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER PATTERNS IN POLICE OPERATIONS 10 2.1 THE ‘BUY-BUST’ NARRATIVE 12 2.2 IMPACT ON FAMILIES 19 2.3 KILLINGS BY UNKNOWN ARMED PERSONS 22 2.4 POLICE LEADERSHIP 23 3. ABUSIVE ‘DRUG WATCH LISTS’ 26 3.1 PRESSURE TO COMPILE LISTS 27 3.2 NO DELISTING? 29 4. IMPUNITY 31 4.1 TOKEN CASES 32 4.2 FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE 33 4.3 INABILITY TO FILE CASES 34 4.4 NOWHERE TO GO 35 5. REHABILITATION AND TREATMENT 37 5.1 NON-EXISTENT SERVICES 37 5.2 EMPHASIS ON ‘RESULTS’ 38 5.3 FALSE HOPE 40 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41 ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 3
MAP ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In towns and cities across the Philippines, the lethal policy that the government calls the “war on drugs” continues. In the three years since President Rodrigo Duterte took office, thousands of poor people suspected of using or selling drugs, or otherwise linked to drugs, have been killed by police and unknown armed persons. While during the first year of Duterte’s tenure as president these killings were fairly well- documented, they often go unreported now, contributing to a perilous normalisation of extrajudicial executions, police abuses, erosion of the rule of law and victimisation of the poor in the country. This situation leaves the victims’ families feeling even more powerless and isolated than before. Due to the government’s tactics of deliberate obfuscation and misinformation, it is impossible to know exactly how many people have been killed in the anti-drug campaign. According to Philippine National Police (PNP) figures, at least 6,600 “drug personalities” were killed in police anti-drug operations between July 2016, when the campaign began, and the end of May 2019 – an average of six a day. Amid constant incitement from the highest levels of government, thousands of other drug-related killings have been committed by unknown armed persons, at least some of whom are believed to be directly linked to the police. Both local and international human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have documented serious crimes under international law and other human rights violations resulting from anti-drug operations, including extrajudicial executions. Despite international condemnation, the Duterte administration remains defiant. In fact, the president warned in early 2019 that the second half of his six-year term will only be harsher, stating that “the last three years of my term will be the most dangerous for people into drugs.” In April 2019, Amnesty International researchers undertook field research in the Philippines, examining 20 incidents of drug-related killings in the province of Bulacan, in Central Luzon. Located just north of the capital, Bulacan is a province to which a number of police commanders who previously supervised abusive operations in Manila have been transferred over the past eighteen months. Bulacan is now the country’s bloodiest killing field, according to official figures. The victims of the drug-related killings examined by Amnesty International were overwhelmingly from poor and marginalised communities, in line with past research findings showing that the government’s anti-drug efforts chiefly target the poor. Families described how victims who struggled to earn a living were accused of allegedly being “big-time” operators. “How come big-time? My husband? And he needs to [work] overtime … to support me and my children?... I don’t understand. Only the poor, only the poor they want to kill,” said the wife of a man who was shot dead by police in late 2018. The loss of a breadwinner, and the staggering costs of burial – compounded by funeral home rackets involving the police – push poor families even deeper into poverty. Families of victims described their suffering in compelling terms. A mother whose son was killed by police said that when she saw her son’s lifeless body at the morgue, “I was screaming. Even now, almost a year later, I feel like my heart is being stabbed.” Amnesty International interviewed 58 people, including witnesses of extrajudicial executions, families of victims, and local officials. In the 20 incidents examined – 18 involving killings in police operations and two involving killings by unknown armed persons – a total of 27 people were killed. Based on witness testimonies and other credible information, half of the cases appear to have been extrajudicial executions. In the remaining incidents, it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence to determine the precise circumstances of the killings, although their broad outlines were consistent with patterns of previous extrajudicial executions committed as part of anti-drug operations in the Philippines. ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 5
Notably, in 15 of the 20 incidents, the persons who were killed were said by family members or police to have been on a “drug watch list.” These lists – which Amnesty International views as unreliable and illegitimate – are at the heart of police anti-drug operations, seeming to guide decisions about whom the police are targeting for arrest or, in some cases, to kill. Local officials are under immense pressure to regularly submit lists of people allegedly involved in drugs to the authorities, including the police, linking them to the campaign of killing. The police also appear to further use the watch lists to expand their network of informants, by requiring “watch-listed” individuals who have “surrendered” to the authorities to provide information about others who have used drugs or who have allegedly committed other drug offences. Worse still, individuals on watch lists appear to be placed on them indefinitely, with no means of getting delisted, even after they have gone through drug treatment or stopped using drugs. In every police operation documented by Amnesty International, police tried to justify the killing by claiming that the person fought back, requiring the use of deadly force. This so-called “buy-bust” narrative doesn’t meet the feeblest standards of credibility. As a forensic expert put it to Amnesty International, this justification “is so consistent, it’s a script.” Another pattern of drug-related killings involves abductions by plainclothes police – and individuals who go missing – which are then classified by the police as “buy-bust” kills when the body appears. Families and witnesses contested numerous aspects of the police accounts. Some told Amnesty International that the victim never owned a gun, and was, in fact, too poor to buy one. Other witness testimony directly refuted accounts of “buy-bust” transactions, with family members and others describing how police broke down the doors of their homes and shot dead the victims, either inside or nearby. In addition, Amnesty International and others have previously documented a pattern by which police have tampered with crime scenes, planted evidence, stolen from victims, and fabricated incident reports. Extrajudicial executions violate the non-derogable human right to life, protected in treaties and customary standards that are binding on the Philippines. The deliberate and systematic nature of the killings, which appear to have been conducted as part of a government-orchestrated attack against poor people suspected of using or selling drugs, is why Amnesty International has repeatedly said that they may amount to crimes against humanity. There has been no meaningful accountability at the national level for the thousands of extrajudicial executions that have taken place over the last three years. Only a single case – caught on video – has been brought to justice, leading to the conviction in November 2018 of three police officers who murdered 17- year-old Kian delos Santos. This single prosecution is in no way commensurate to the vast number of extrajudicial executions and other human rights violations that have taken place since the “war on drugs” began in the Philippines. Many families expressed both guilt and helplessness about their inability to obtain justice for their loved ones, citing the enormous obstacles to filing cases, the extreme difficulty of obtaining police or autopsy reports, and their immense fear of retaliation. Human rights defenders and experts said they, too, had lost hope in the prospect of domestic accountability; many said that they were documenting evidence for the future—for a time when the government changes, or the international community, including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, becomes involved. Other aspects of the Philippines’ drug control policies remain alarmingly problematic as well. Drug rehabilitation and treatment programmes for people who use drugs remain woefully inadequate, undermining the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health and impinging on their right to privacy. The country’s reliance on punitive criminal law policies to deal with drug-related problems has deepened stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs, pushed them further into hiding, and facilitated human rights violations against them. The Duterte administration’s unlawful campaign has further marginalised people who use drugs, tormented their families, and harmed the communities in which they live. It has had the effect of creating a climate of total impunity in the country, in which police and others are free to kill without consequence. Given this human rights calamity, Amnesty International is calling on the Philippine government to immediately revise its current anti-drug policies which disproportionately target the poor, hold all those responsible for extrajudicial executions to account, and develop and implement a human rights-compliant drug policy. The failure of the international community to meaningfully address the serious human rights violations committed as part of the “war on drugs” has emboldened the Philippine government to carry out a wider crackdown on independent media, human rights defenders, and political activists. This must not be allowed to continue. Amnesty International calls on the international community, via the UN Human Rights Council, to open an independent investigation into the Philippines, in order to put an end to these crimes, and to provide justice and reparations for countless families and victims. ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 6
METHODOLOGY This report is based on field research conducted in the Philippines in April 2019 and subsequent remote follow-up in April and May 2019, all of which was conducted by Amnesty International researchers. Twenty incidents of drug-related killings that occurred between May 2018 and April 2019 were examined. The findings are based on interviews conducted with 58 people. They included witnesses of extrajudicial executions, families of victims, local officials, local human rights investigators, lawyers, journalists, church leaders, drug policy reform advocates, and a person who formerly used drugs. Several interviewees, particularly witnesses and family members, said they feared reprisals against them or their loved ones if it became known they had spoken with Amnesty International. As a result of widespread fear of police retaliation and other security concerns, it was difficult to locate and contact first-hand witnesses in several cases. Many families and witnesses refused to speak at all, even on condition of anonymity. To help ensure interviewees’ safety and security, Amnesty International arranged for some interviews to take place away from their homes, out of sight of informants. Because of concerns for people’s safety, Amnesty International is also withholding the names and specific identifying information of almost all the witnesses and family members it interviewed, as well as of interviewees with inside knowledge of the workings of the government’s anti-drug operations. Pseudonyms have been used in some cases. Amnesty International did not provide any incentives in exchange for interviews. At times, the organisation covered transportation costs for families and witnesses who had travelled to speak to the researchers. Interviews were conducted in Tagalog and English, with the help of translators. Amnesty International reviewed an array of documents relating to the cases it examined, including death certificates, autopsy reports, and police reports. The organisation was able to review police accounts of the killings in acknowledged police operations in all but one of the cases it examined. These police accounts came in several forms: three were contained in police incident reports; one was in a case file obtained by the family, and the rest were in press releases issued by the police, or media articles in which the police were quoted in relation to the incident. The organisation also reviewed a variety of government circulars and memoranda pertaining to the broader anti-drug campaign, including some from the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). On 17 June 2019, Amnesty International sent a letter to the PNP requesting information regarding their anti- drug operations. At the time of publication, there had been no response. ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 7
1. BACKGROUND
“My only sin is the extrajudicial killings.”
President Rodrigo Duterte, September 2018.
Since coming to power on 30 June 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration have repackaged
and relaunched his anti-drug campaign several times.1 In January 2017, six months after launching a “war
on drugs,” the government was forced to suspend “Operation Double Barrel,” the first iteration of a police-
led campaign which had left over 7,000 suspected drug offenders dead at the hands of police and unknown
armed persons.2 Disturbingly, the reason for the suspension was not the high kill rate, but rather the kidnap
and killing of a Korean businessman, found to have been carried out by police.3
After announcing that the police were “corrupt to the core,” and promising that he would “cleanse” the
country’s force, the Duterte administration relaunched the campaign in March 2017 under the rubric of
“Operation Double Barrel Reloaded.”4 Then-Police Chief Ronald de la Rosa pledged that abuses and
mistakes made in previous drug operations would not be repeated. 5 In spite of this, the wave of killings
immediately resumed and further intensified.6 In May 2017, after coming under heavy criticism from over 40
states at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the government issued blanket denials that human
rights violations had occurred and later instructed police not to cooperate with, and launched attacks on, UN
Special Procedures or international investigators that might seek to probe the situation. 7
The police’s crackdown almost ended completely when killings of three teenagers weeks later sparked
domestic outcry and triggered protests in the streets.8 CCTV footage and witness statements contradicted
official accounts of the killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos, who was later found to have been
extrajudicially executed at the hands of police. 9 Facing significant backlash, in October 2017, the
government announced the suspension of the campaign once again, stating that police would no longer be
1
As a presidential candidate, Rodrigo Duterte had campaigned on a platform to end crime, drugs and corruption. Prior to that, he had
served as Mayor of Davao City for 22 years, a period during which he oversaw a violent crackdown on alleged criminals, including
people using and selling drugs. Human rights groups say they documented killings by “death squads” with links to the Davao local
government during his tenure. See, for example, Human Rights Watch, “You can die anytime:” Death squad killing in Mindanao, 6
April 2009, bit.ly/1XeCoU5. By some estimates, more than 1,400 killings between 1998 and 2015 were documented. Paterno
Esmaquel II, “Archbishop in Mindanao slams Duterte over killings,” Rappler, 5 May 2016, bit.ly/2NnPTHp.
2
See for example, Amnesty International, If you are poor you are killed: Extrajudicial executions in the Philippines’ “War on Drugs,”
January 2017 (Index: ASA 35/5517/2017), pp. 37-39. BBC News, “Philippines to suspend drug war to clean up ‘corrupt’ police,” 30
January 2017, bbc.in/2XGqBbh.
3
Tetch Torres-Tupas, “Korean businessman killed inside PNP headquarters,” The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 19 January 2017, bit.ly/2J9Jo5p.
4
Karl Malakunas, “‘You are corrupt to the core,’ Duterte tells cops,” Agence France-Presse, 30 January 2017, bit.ly/2ZNhS4q.
5
Cecille Suerte Felipe, “‘Double Barrel’ reloaded,” The Philippine Star, 7 March 2017, bit.ly/2Nhz68P.
6
See, for example, Amnesty International, Stop new killings and implement police reforms urgently, (Index: 35/5894/17).
7
See, for example, Channel News Asia, “Philippines drug war under fire at UN rights council,” 8 May 2017, bit.ly/2JbAF2G; The
Philippine Star, “Duterte warns Callamard: If you investigate me, I’ll slap you,” 10 November 2017, bit.ly/2ZYgts4; Reuters,
“Philippines’ Duterte tells police, soldiers not to cooperate in any drug war probe,” 1 March 2018, reut.rs/2Nkh2uE.
In September 2017, the government would reject all recommendations received under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in relation
to extrajudicial executions, the re-introduction of the death penalty, and attacks on human rights defenders. Alexis Romero, “Palace:
Rejecting UN rights recommendations a Philippine prerogative,” The Philippine Star, 25 September 2017, bit.ly/2Xhs3S4.
8
See, for example, Patricia Lourdes Viray, “What we know so far: Killing of Carl Arnaiz, 19,” The Philippine Star, 4 September 2017,
bit.ly/2W4HFrD; Rambo Talabong, “Kian and Carl: What the deaths of two boys have in common,” Rappler, 4 September 2017,
bit.ly/2wj0Leh.
9
ABS-CBN News, “3 cops found guilty of murder over Kian Delos Santos slay,” 29 November 2018, bit.ly/2DQohnG.
‘THEY JUST KILL’
ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International 8
in charge of it. The responsibility for fighting the “war on drugs” was handed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and anti-drug efforts were pledged to be less bloody.10 This did not happen. Less than three months later, the president announced that there had “been a notable resurgence in illegal drug related activities and crimes” and that PDEA lacked the manpower needed to handle the challenge. 11 Police were re-assigned to drug operations alongside PDEA, and a new set of guidelines that sought to allay fears, at least publicly, of their return, were then released.12 Killings resumed once more. In February 2018, the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched a preliminary examination into crimes committed in the context of the Philippines’ “war on drugs,” sparking a furious reaction from President Duterte, who announced that the country would withdraw from the Rome Statute. The withdrawal became effective as of March 2019.13 Time and time again, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN special procedures and civil society organisations have raised concerns about the country’s human rights situation. In a speech at the presidential palace in September 2018, Duterte railed against his critics, and those who challenged his government, and admitted, openly, “my only sin is the extrajudicial killings.” 14 He has gone on to further warn in 2019 that “the last three years of my term will be the most dangerous for people into drugs,” and that he does not care how many have died in the process.15 Meanwhile, the human rights situation in the country more broadly has deteriorated. The President has repeatedly threatened human rights defenders, and launched a crackdown against journalists and media agencies critical of the government.16 There has been a wider attack on peaceful activists accused of being affiliated with the political left, with a rise of killings since the breakdown of peace talks in the country.17 In March 2019, journalists and human rights lawyers were threatened with charges after being accused by the Office of the President, without credible proof, of plotting to destabilise the government.18 Meanwhile, Senator Leila de Lima, a vocal critic of the “war on drugs” and the president’s strategy, is enduring a third year of arbitrary detention on politically-motivated charges, after seeking to carry out a Senate investigation of drug-related killings.19 Having secured a majority in both houses of Congress in mid-term elections, held in May 2019, members of President Duterte’s administration have stated that the result proves that the public supports its violent approach to combating drugs.20 Legislative proposals that run contrary to the Philippines’ obligations under international human rights law, such as the reinstitution of the death penalty and the lowering of the minimum age of criminal responsibility from age 15 to age 12, are currently being discussed in Congress and may become law in the near future. The continued failure of the international community to act has sent a clear message to the Duterte administration – and others who are watching who may follow its lead – that it is free to continue the campaign of killings with impunity. As of now, the unlawful killings and other human rights violations associated with the country’s anti-drug campaign show no signs of ending. 10 Lara Tan, “No more 'Oplan Tokhang': Police suspends all anti-drug operations,” CNN Philippines, 12 October 2017, bit.ly/2Wrq8cm. 11 Pia Ranada, “Duterte officially orders return of PNP to drug war,” Rappler, 5 December 2017, bit.ly/2IGpikp. 12 Rambo Talabong, “PNP to add new drug war rules before resuming Tokhang,“ Rappler, 6 December 2017, bit.ly/2X1Pjzj. 13 Jason Gutierrez, “Philippines officially leaves the International Criminal Court,” New York Times, 17 March 2019, nyti.ms/2Cj7vMz. 14 Hannah Ellis-Petersen, “Duterte confesses: 'My only sin is the extrajudicial killings,'” The Guardian, 28 September 2018, bit.ly/2OXgHuf. 15 Pia Ranada, “Duterte says last half of his term ‘most dangerous’ for drug suspects,” Rappler, 26 February 2019, bit.ly/2BOLbtZ; GMA News Online, “I don’t care how many will die in war on drugs,” 30 May 2019, bit.ly/2MsTi7k. 16 Agence France-Presse, “Philippines press ‘under attack’ as authorities arrest Rappler co-founder, journalist Maria Ressa again,” 29 March 2019, bit.ly/2EynirY. 17 Nick Aspinwall, “Duterte turns death squads on political activists,” Foreign Policy, 10 June 2019, bit.ly/2IpHoa5. 18 Nestor Corrales, “Philippine Palace confirms existence of 'Oust-Duterte plot,'” AsiaOne, 22 April 2019, bit.ly/2HYocyC. 19 Karen Lema, “Philippines puts anti-drug operation on hold to tackle rogue police,” Reuters, 29 January 2017, reut.rs/2HDXVHb. 20 See for example, “Duterte and drug war ‘won’ mid-term polls, Locsin tweets,” The Philippine Star, 15 May 2019, bit.ly/2Lb1OFH. ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 9
2. EXTRAJUDICIAL
EXECUTIONS AND OTHER
PATTERNS IN POLICE
OPERATIONS
“He was not brought to prison… he was picked up to be
killed… They just kill. Kill, kill, kill.”
Sister of a man who was killed by the police in an alleged anti-drug sting operation in early 2019.
The Philippines’ anti-drug campaign has taken a staggering human toll. According to Philippine National
Police (PNP) figures reported in the media in June 2019, at least 6,600 people were killed in anti-drug
police operations between 1 July 2016 and 31 May 2019.21 In addition to these killings, for which the police
role is acknowledged, there have also been thousands of other drug-related killings committed by unknown
armed persons, which the police put in the wider category of “homicide cases under investigation.” The last
time the PNP released figures on this category of killings was in mid-2018, tallying more than 23,000 such
cases. The police say over 10,000 of those homicides are not believed to be drug-related, that the motive in
another 10,000 is yet to be determined, and that only around 2,600 were believed to be drug-related killings.22
These figures are far from precise. Government officials have issued contradictory statements as to these
numbers, including at one point revising figures downward. They are also no longer transparently releasing
the number of drug-related killings by unknown armed persons. Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, local rights groups and numerous media reports have shown that in many cases these unknown
armed persons have a direct link to the police – they are either paid killers hired by the police or disguised
police officers.23
While drug-related killings continue to occur across the country, the epicentre of police killings seems to
have shifted over the past year from Metro Manila to the region just north of it, Central Luzon, according to
PNP data obtained by a local news website.24
21
See, for example, Emmanuel Tupas, “Drug war death toll now 6,600 – PNP,” The Philippine Star, 19 June 2019, bit.ly/2Lc51Vp; Christopher
Lloyd Caliwan, “More than 12K barangays now ‘drug-cleared’: PNP,” Philippine News Agency, 18 June 2019, bit.ly/2xfQ3W5; Michael Joe Delizo,
“Over 6,000 killed in nearly 3 years of PH drug war: PNP,” ABS-CBN News, 18 June 2019, bit.ly/2Io1a5G.
22
Rambo Talabong, “At least 33 killed daily in the Philippines since Duterte assumed office,” Rappler, 17 December 2018, bit.ly/2RLjuHE.
23
ASA 35/5517/2017; Human Rights Watch, License to Kill: Philippine police killings in Duterte’s “War on Drugs,” 2 March 2017, bit.ly/2LwurcV.
24
PNP data obtained by the news website Rappler shows that in 2018, Central Luzon recorded 542 fatalities in police anti-drug operations, whereas
Metro Manila had 285 kills. Rambo Talabong, “Central Luzon: New killing fields in Duterte’s drug war,” Rappler, 24 February 2019, bit.ly/30wMhoM.
‘THEY JUST KILL’
ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International 10This shift happened around the time that senior police officials were transferred there from Manila, after being in a position of command responsibility when large numbers of killings by the police were occurring in the latter location.25 At present, the lion’s share of killings in Central Luzon has happened in the province of Bulacan.26 In carrying out its research for this report, Amnesty International focused on Bulacan, documenting 20 incidents of drug-related killings in which a total of 27 people were killed. The incidents took place between May 2018 and April 2019 and were spread across the province’s three cities and five of its municipalities. 27 Based on witness testimony, documents, and other credible information, Amnesty International was able to make a specific assessment in half of the cases it examined that the incidents appear to have been extrajudicial executions.28 In the remaining incidents, it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence to determine the precise circumstances of the killings, although their broad outlines were consistent with patterns seen in extrajudicial executions.29 Of the 20 cases examined by Amnesty International, 18 involved people killed in formal police operations. In all but one of the 18 cases, the organisation was able to review a police account regarding the incident, if not the actual police report.30 In every single account, the police said the case involved a “buy-bust” operation in which undercover police were buying drugs from a “suspect.” This description was employed even in incidents where families and witnesses spoke of an all-out raid, rather than a sting operation. Families of victims who are predominantly poor continue to suffer considerable mental anguish and economic hardships as a result of the killings. Many interviewees described a climate of fear in which they are constantly worried about their loved ones going out at night lest they be framed by the police at checkpoints or elsewhere. Crime scene investigators inspect the site of the killing of two men shot dead in an alleged “buy-bust” police operation on 1 July 2018, Caloocan City, Metro Manila. In all 18 incidents of killings by the police documented in this report, the police said the case involved a “buy-bust” operation in which undercover operatives were buying drugs from a “suspect,” a description employed even in incidents where families and witnesses spoke of an all-out raid, rather than a sting operation. ©Amnesty International 25 Rambo Talabong, “Central Luzon: New killing fields in Duterte’s drug war,” Rappler, 24 February 2019. 26 Rambo Talabong, “Central Luzon: New killing fields in Duterte’s drug war,” Rappler, 24 February 2019. Amnesty International interviews with the Central Luzon regional office of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights corroborate this information. 27 The cities are Malolos, Meycauayan, and San Jose del Monte. The five municipalities are Pandi, Pulilan, Plaridel, Bocaue, and Santa Maria. 28 The documents included police reports and, in one case, an independent autopsy report. 29 As a result of people’s widespread fear of reprisals from the police, as well as other security constraints, it was difficult to locate and interview first-hand witnesses in several cases. 30 The police account of the incident came in several forms. In a few instances, Amnesty International reviewed actual police incident reports, while in others it reviewed press releases issued by the police, media reports quoting the police regarding the incident, or a case file obtained from the prosecutor. For reasons of security, Amnesty International was not able to interview police directly regarding these incidents. ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 11
2.1 THE ‘BUY-BUST’ NARRATIVE
UNLAWFUL KILLING OF JOVAN MAGTANONG AT THE HANDS OF THE POLICE
A photo of Jovan Magtanong sits next to his home altar, 16 April 2019, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Police say the 30-year-old father of three allegedly shot at
officers during a “buy-bust” operation in November. Family members say he did not own a gun, and witnesses described a raid during which police shot him dead
in his bedroom. © Amnesty International
Shortly after 11 pm on 20 November 2018, gunshots rang out in the San Jose del Monte house of 30-
year-old Jovan Magtanong, a stay-at-home father of three.
Police claim that the Drug Enforcement Unit of the city’s police conducted a “buy-bust” operation
targeting Jovan. They say he allegedly fired at the “operatives” when he realised he was facing the police,
prompting them to respond and shoot him dead. The police say they recovered a .38 calibre gun and
sachets of what they believed were illicit drugs from the scene of the incident.
Witnesses recalled the incident quite differently. According to their account, Jovan was complaining of
fever that night, and after borrowing money from his father to buy medicine, he went to sleep alongside
his three children in a crammed room whose back door leads outside.
A witness who was sleeping in another room in the modest house told Amnesty International that he was
awoken by the sound of gunshots, and that at first, he thought the shots were outside. He opened the
window to look out and saw a lot of people and police vehicles.
He said that when he opened the bedroom door he found police officers, including some who covered
their faces with bonnets, “ransacking” the house. When the police saw him, he said, “they pointed a gun
at me and told me to lie face down on the ground … [one of them] stepped on my face, told me not to
move, and said ‘I’m going to kill you, I’m going to kill you!’”31
The police had taken Jovan’s three children (ages ten, seven, and three) to the barangay hall and told
family members to go retrieve them from there.32
Other witnesses outside Jovan’s house, which is located along a narrow alleyway, said that they heard the
police arrive in their vehicles before Jovan was shot. One of the witnesses told Amnesty International that
the police knocked at the back door of Jovan’s house, identified themselves as law enforcement and said
31
Amnesty International interview with witness, San Jose del Monte, 16 April 2019.
32
The barangay is the smallest unit of local government in the Philippines.
‘THEY JUST KILL’
ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International 12they were conducting a random search. According to the witness, the police asked Jovan about someone
else, and when he said that’s not who he is, the police asked him to turn around and shots were fired
after that.
Jovan’s family said he did not own a gun.
An Amnesty International researcher saw the room where Jovan was shot, the wall opposite the house
back door still pockmarked by three bullet holes. Between the location of the door, the tight space, and
placement of furniture it is difficult to give much credence to the police account of “fighting back.”
His death certificate, like many others reviewed by Amnesty International, said that the cause of death
was “Gunshot wounds, trunk,” without further elaboration. The family said that items taken from the
house by the police, including 20,000 Philippine pesos (US$380) and three cell phones, were never
returned.
Jovan, who was on a “drug watch list,” was using drugs but had stopped more than a year before he was
killed, his family said, insisting that he was not selling drugs either. A family member took him to the
municipality to “surrender,” after which he did some community service and stopped using drugs. “He
had started to gain weight… and was taking care of his children and doing house chores,” a family
member said.
Five months after he was killed, Jovan’s family members showed signs of profound bereavement,
breaking down in tears at various points during the interview. “They killed him like an animal … I don’t
know why [they would do that] … this killing … this way, in his home, with his children,” a family
member said.33
‘COPY PASTE’
In practically all the cases examined by Amnesty International, families said their killed loved ones did not own
a gun and would not have even known how to use one. Many said those killed were too poor to own a firearm.
In the words of one victim’s mother: “If he had a gun, he would have sold it because he can’t even buy food.”34
Amnesty International and others have documented in the past the consistent pattern of police tampering
with crime scenes, rigging evidence, and falsifying reports. The practice reportedly predates Duterte’s
administration. “Everyone plants evidence,” a police officer with an anti-drugs unit in Metro Manila told
Amnesty International in late 2016.35
In one of the cases examined in this report, which Amnesty International believes was an unlawful killing, a
family member of the victim said he had been a police informant for some time. Among the tasks he carried
out was providing information on “drug suspects,” falsely testifying in court as a witness in an assortment of
cases (both drug-related and not), and sourcing .38 calibre guns “that the officers plant on people to say
they fought back,” the family member said. The relative added, bitterly, that the same firearm was placed on
his body when the police claimed he was killed in a “buy-bust” operation.36
In 14 of the 17 police accounts examined in this report, the police stated that the gun found on the alleged
suspects was a .38 calibre. This is consistent with media reports, including articles citing PNP data. 37 In very
few cases did the guns have serial numbers.
Invariably, in these alleged “nanlaban” or “fought back” cases examined in this report, no policemen were
injured or killed—fitting a consistent record of unconvincing police statistics, which Amnesty International
and others have found suggests a pattern of extrajudicial executions.
Human rights investigators and journalists reiterated to Amnesty International that the near-identical
language in police reports, a pattern documented by the organisation in the past, raises obvious questions
about the credibility of the police’s accounts. Jasmin Navarro-Regino, the head of the Commission on
33
Amnesty International interview with family member of Jovan Magtanong, San Jose del Monte, 16 April 2019.
34
Amnesty International interview with mother of victim of police killing, Bocaue, 8 April 2019.
35
ASA 35/5517/2017.
36
Amnesty International had in the past documented several drug-related killings in which families said their killed loved ones were a
police “asset.” In 2016, at the height of the ‘drug war’ killings, journalists and human rights defenders investigating the murders said
they believed “insiders” with knowledge of anti-drug operations were being targeted.
37
See, for example, DJ Yap, “‘Tokhang’ data: Slain suspects carried mostly .38-caliber guns,” The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 14 February
2018, bit.ly/2LO4bA5; Jodesz Gavilan, “In the PH drug war, it’s likely EJK when ...” Rappler, 14 May 2017, bit.ly/2WP8n3J.
‘THEY JUST KILL’
ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International 13Human Rights’ regional office whose territory includes Bulacan said, “I memorised it already.”38 Dr. Raquel
Fortun, a forensic pathologist who has conducted over a dozen independent autopsies on victims of drug-
related killings under the Duterte administration, said of the police accounts:
It’s so consistent, it’s a script. In fact, when you see the report, it looks like a template
… and they just change the dates, the names … Equally problematic, how come it’s a
‘buy-bust’ and then somebody ends up dead? … You do a sting operation, you are police
officers, you should be prepared … And the cases I see and the others I have not, they
sustain multiple gunshot wounds, clearly more than enough to subdue, to disable … So,
what are you talking about in terms of you shot them because they ‘fought back?’39
After the Supreme Court ordered the release of thousands of police documents to human rights groups that
had petitioned the court over the legality of the “war on drugs,” a small sampling of these documents further
corroborated a “template nanlaban” pattern, one of the groups said. 40 “The facts of each case vary, the
circumstances vary, it makes no sense that the police report is copy paste and verbatim,” said Maria Socorro
Diokno, Secretary General of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), one of the groups that had petitioned
the court.41
IMPLAUSIBLE ‘NANLABAN’ (‘FOUGHT BACK’)
In cases in which Amnesty International was able to interview direct witnesses, including the case of
Jovan Magtanong detailed above, the police’s “buy-bust” narrative was thoroughly debunked. One such
case unfolded in February 2019. “Benjie,” a public transport driver in his 30s, was said by witnesses to
have been sleeping in his in-laws’ house on the outskirts of one of Bulacan’s sprawling cities when police
barged in, startling old and young alike. The father of two had just come back from working for three days
in a neighbouring city to put food on his family’s table.
Witnesses said the police had spread outside the house and neighbouring residences, swarming their
area around 8:30 p.m. Policemen in plainclothes ordered a group of teenagers and young men who had
been hanging around outside the house to lie down on the ground, but one of the teenagers got scared
and ran inside. A witness inside the house who was woken up by the raid explained what happened next:
When the boy ran inside, my husband was alarmed and asked, ‘What’s happening?’
That’s when I was awoken. When I opened my eyes, I saw a man pointing a gun at us.
The man with the gun twisted my husband’s arm behind him and placed the gun behind
his head. We were both made to lie down on the floor. Then, that man came [to the
room where Benjie was sleeping] and used a flashlight to see what’s inside. That’s
when he found [Benjie] asleep there. [Benjie] had no idea what was happening … He
was woken up by the man with the gun [who] was kicking him and telling him ‘Get up!
Get up!’ … Then [Benjie] was brought outside where they put handcuffs on him and
made him lie on the ground. 42
Amnesty International spoke with another witness who was outside the house during the incident. He
corroborated the first witness’s account and added that Benjie was then taken to a van. Later, Benjie was
taken out of the van and into the house next door, the second witness said. The household of Benjie’s in -
laws heard gunshots coming from the direction of their neighbour’s house both before and after Benjie
was taken out of their home.
By the time the media arrived, the police had a very different story to tell. The police claimed that a “buy -
bust” operation had been conducted, targeting Benjie and the neighbour living in the house next door,
saying the latter was a “watch-listed [drug] personality.” Both men purportedly drew guns and shot at the
police before they were killed, and several sachets of shabu were found in their possession.43
Benjie’s family said he was not using or selling drugs. “He rarely even smoked,” a relative said.
38
Amnesty International interview with Attorney Jasmin Navarro-Regino, CHR Regional Director (Regional Office III), San Fernando
City, 12 April 2019.
39
Amnesty International interview with Dr. Raquel Fortun, forensic pathologist, Metro Manila, 17 April 2019.
40
See, for example, ABS-CBN, “Initial ‘Tokhang’ files show ‘template nanlaban’ cases: lawyers’ group,” 4 April 2019, bit.ly/2w9c3l2.
41
Amnesty International telephone interview with Maria Socorro Diokno, Secretary General of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG),
11 May 2019.
42
Amnesty International interview with witness, Bulacan, 7 April 2019.
43
Police press release on file with Amnesty International.
‘THEY JUST KILL’
ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International 14‘WHY THREE BODIES?’
Brothers Joel and Jonathan Andong, whom the police said were on a “drug watch list,” were killed alongside
a third person on 25 February 2019 in the city of San Jose del Monte. The police said: “Joel Andong
together with his other two cohorts opened fire towards the approaching arresting police officers after the
consummated drug transaction with an undercover agent.” 44
A witness who spoke with Amnesty International said Joel had been doing construction work in a house next
to his family’s place all morning. The witness said that at around 4:30 pm he saw an unidentified man
talking to Joel outside the house where the latter had been working, adding that the conversation was not
audible.
The witness stepped away briefly. Upon returning, the witness saw the unidentified man holding Joel by his
arm, but, he said, he did not think much of it at the time. Neither Jonathan nor the third person who was
killed in the same incident were present, the witness said, insisting that the police’s story that all three men
were in that house and sold drugs to an undercover agent was implausible.
No sooner had he gone indoors, the witness said, he heard a commotion. When he looked out again at the
area where Jonathan was standing, he saw police in plainclothes running up and down the alley, and officers
spread out to keep people at bay. That is when he realised that the man Joel was talking to earlier was with
the police. Then he heard two rounds of multiple gunshots, he said.
The caskets of brothers Joel and Jonathan Andong sit next to each other during their wake, 2 March 2019, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Police say the two men alongside
a third person allegedly pulled firearms and shot at the police during a “buy-bust” operation in February, but witnesses disputed the account, saying the three men were
not even in the same place when undercover police operatives first showed up at the house where the bodies ended up being found. ©Amnesty International
For hours, the police kept the house where Joel was doing construction cordoned off, and for the most part
refused to answer questions by neighbouring residents about what was happening. “The police had
someone outside every house, so they can control the crowd, so that nobody can see what they’re doing,”
the witness said.45
The witness added that a neighbour had seen Jonathan running in the neighbourhood earlier and being
apprehended by the police. Amnesty International also learned that a family member of the third victim –
worried after news of the gunshots spread – called around asking for him, and saying he’d been taken away
in handcuffs earlier in the afternoon.
When officers ultimately explained to onlookers that three men were gunned down inside that house after
they supposedly shot at the police, that prompted tense exchanges with people in the neighbourhood who
44
Police press release on file with Amnesty International.
45
Amnesty International interview with witness, San Jose del Monte, 7 April 2019.
‘THEY JUST KILL’
ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International 15did not believe the police’s account. “Why three bodies?” a resident asked the police, the witness said.
Added the witness: “Why do they have to kill all of them like animals?”
Amnesty International could not independently determine how the three bodies ended up in the house.
Video and photos of where the bloody bodies lied viewed by the organisation did not provide specific clues
regarding whether all three were shot in that location or if at least one of them, as residents maintain, was
shot somewhere else and transported to the scene.
BEATEN ‘BLACK AND BLUE’
Late one night in early 2018, the mother of 20-year-old “Jay” was at work when she learned from relatives
that her son had been shot by the police, the mother told Amnesty International. She rushed to the scene
but was not allowed near the body and it was only later, at the funeral parlour’s morgue, that she finally got
to see her son’s body, she said. She described the body’s state as horrifying:
I was only able to hug him in the morgue. That’s when I saw his whole body black and
blue. Even his teeth were broken … His arm had two gunshots [sic] … they broke it like
a bamboo. He was really heavily beaten aside from the gunshot wounds he had.46
The police report viewed by Amnesty International said a police officer had posed as a drug buyer and that
after a “successful test buy,” the officer or “poseur buyer acted lawfully by defending himself.” It was only
when the suspect “violently reacted” upon learning the buyer was a policeman – pulling a gun from his waist
– that the officer shot him, the report stated. 47
Jay’s mother said her son was at a house where several of his friends and his younger siblings were present
and that reliable eyewitnesses described to her a different version of events. Jay was said to have stepped
downstairs to respond to someone calling his name and when he did, he was allegedly taken back inside the
house and beaten, then taken outside again, beaten some more, and then shot. According to the mother,
the eyewitnesses have gone into hiding out of fear of police reprisal.
There was no autopsy conducted because the family was told it would be expensive, said the mother, who
broke down in tears.48 “I’m mad … my son wasn’t really a [big-time] drug pusher … he just found a side-line
[sic] so he could earn a little. But the condition they left him in … If you could see [his body] then, I was
screaming. Even now, almost a year later, I feel like my heart is being stabbed.”
ANATOMY OF A KILLING
One family that did manage to have their loved one undergo an independent autopsy is that of father of
three, “Rodel.” Amnesty International did not interview a direct witness to the killing, but examined credible
information suggesting that it was unlawful.
Rodel was killed by the police in late 2018 in what authorities said was another “buy-bust” operation. His
wife said she was hysterical when she learned the news, hours after he’d gone missing and stopped
returning her calls. She insisted he was never involved in the drug trade, neither using or selling: “How come
big-time? My husband? And he needs to [work] overtime … to support me and my children?... I don’t
understand. Only the poor, only the poor they want to kill.”49
It wasn’t just the police’s story that she did not believe. When it seemingly took the police-accredited funeral
home only about 30 minutes to conduct an autopsy, she questioned the quality of their work. 50 She set out
to, and indeed secured, an independent autopsy of her husband’s body; she also managed to obtain a case
file from the prosecutor’s office, a rarity.
It transpired that the first “autopsy” was nothing more than a superficial incision that was not followed by any
internal examination.51 By contrast, the independent autopsy, as detailed in a seven-page report, extracted
two “mushroomed” 9 mm bullets from Rodel’s body. The report explained that Rodel sustained two gunshot
46
Amnesty International interview with mother of victim, Bulacan, 11 April 2019.
47
Police report on file with Amnesty International.
48
The death certificate viewed by Amnesty International indeed confirms that no autopsy was done.
49
Amnesty International interview with wife of victim of police killing, Bulacan, 6 April 2019.
50
Autopsies are conducted by members of the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) unit, who also process crime scenes. The
procedure takes place in certain private funeral homes that have obtained accreditation from the police, doubling up as morgues.
51
Human rights investigators and a forensic expert told Amnesty International that is a common pattern they have seen in drug-related
killings they have documented.
‘THEY JUST KILL’
ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’
Amnesty International 16wounds, one in his left arm, the other in his chest, that there were no exit wounds, and that there was significant internal organ damage. Of particular note is the gunshot wound in the left arm, the forensic pathologist who conducted this examination explained to Amnesty International. The bullet did not exit at the armpit indicating that Rodel’s arm must have been raised; it also had a downward trajectory, as did the bullet causing the gunshot wound in the chest. These factors suggest that the victim may have been on the ground with his arm raised when he was shot, or at the very least, that the shooter was above him. This analysis contradicts the police’s description of events as detailed in the case file, and which says the officer and Rodel were face to face in an alleged undercover drug transaction. The police documents reviewed by Amnesty International raise even more questions. They indicate that police, based on information from a confidential informant, conducted a “surveillance and casing operation” against Rodel in the morning before deciding to move on him that very day. The language of the surveillance report, in itself, signalled an alarming intent. At the bottom of the report, the signed recommendation of two officers (one from the Drug Enforcement Unit, the other a chief intelligence officer) was: “[T]he immediate conduct of a buy-bust operation for the immediate neutralisation/apprehension of the above subject to protect the willing and unwilling victims of his illegal activities.”52 “Neutralisation” is widely believed to be the Philippine police’s standard euphemism for killing. It is the language used in the controversial PNP Command Circular Memorandum (CMC) No. 16-2016 – the very first police document operationalising Duterte’s anti-drug campaign. Both Amnesty International and Philippine human rights groups have also criticised this circular and other related documents, including before the courts.53 ‘ABDUCTIONS’ Several details in Rodel’s case were similar to those of at least four other alleged “buy-bust” incidents examined by Amnesty International. He had gone missing a few hours after he went to meet an acquaintance. And as Rodel’s wife explained, he “was found dead in the rice fields, there are no people there.” With the help of community volunteers, she went door to door in the neighbourhood where her husband was meant to meet that person, showing Rodel’s picture to residents and asking if anyone had seen him. Ultimately, she said, witnesses told her they saw Rodel being arrested by the police that day. Amnesty International spoke to an independent source who was present and who was able to verify that the exchange between Rodel’s wife and the witnesses happened, as well as the contents of the conversation. At least five other families told Amnesty International that their loved ones – all of whom were on “drug watch lists” – had been missing for several hours, at times up to a day or two before their bodies surfaced along a highway, in a dark alley, or a cemetery in what police acknowledged as a “buy-bust” killing. In all five cases there did not appear to have been anyone who witnessed the actual killing. But in at least two of these cases, families said they spoke with people who saw their loved one being taken into custody by police at some point before the killing; and one family said they viewed barangay CCTV footage indicating that. Local human rights investigators told Amnesty International they have been tracking cases of drug-related killings in Bulacan that entail “abductions” by plainclothes police but end up being classified by the police as a “nanlaban” or “fought back” kill when the body emerges. A former tanod (public security officer), involved in a security role in their community for over a dozen years, also said these kind of killings have been happening in their community. “Some were taken in by the men in bonnets, accosted in [my barangay] alive, but the bodies would be found somewhere else … And some are from other places and then they end up killed [in my barangay],” they told Amnesty International.54 Witnesses and local human rights investigators used the phrase “men in bonnets” to describe police intelligence officers who arrived first before a police raid unfolded; uniformed officers showed up later.55 52 Documents on file with Amnesty International. 53 See, for example, Jodesz Gavilan, “What do gov’t circulars ‘operationalizing’ Duterte’s war on drugs say?” Rappler, 21 November 2017, bit.ly/2HgUPZt; Lian Buan and Jodesz Gavilan, “How Duterte gov’t tried to fix legal loopholes of drug war,” Rappler, 30 April 2019, bit.ly/2LCoWid. 54 Amnesty International interview with former barangay tanod, Bulacan, 11 April 2019. Amnesty International is using a gender neutral pronouns (they, them, their) when referring to the tanod to protect their identity and safety. 55 Amnesty International interviews, Bulacan, April 2019. ‘THEY JUST KILL’ ONGOING EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES’ ‘WAR ON DRUGS’ Amnesty International 17
You can also read
